Punisher: War Zone : i enjoyed the shooting and the action but after 2 great Punisher movies (especially the Thomas Jane one) it was weak and cliche.

Electra : nuff said, terrible film from beggining to end

Fantastic Four : it wasnt fun enough i agree, it didnt have a point. 99% of the film is them dealing with their powers. FF 2 was much better and i appreciate the work they did with SS, it was damn accurate.

Iron Man 2 : A lot of people consider this a good movie, even better than Iron Man 1. i just can't see it. You have "Iron Man" a kick ass movie with well written characters, well acted, well directed, with message, with a non douchebag Tony Stark who can still be bitter and awesome but not douchey and you follow it with Iron Man 2, it was a mess !! Mickey Rourke was weirdly casted, Justin Hammer was the best part not because he was menacing like Jeff Bridges was, but because he was corny and stupid. Tony is a flatout douchebag, the robot/android thing was rushed and not right, the movie looks cool but it isnt, its all style no substance.

Spider Man 3 : it was just dissapointing, didnt hate it, the final battle was great. 3 bad guys was too much, if Raimi did what he had in mind then it would be Spiderman 2 good.

Iron Man 2 : A lot of people consider this a good movie, even better than Iron Man 1. i just can't see it. You have "Iron Man" a kick ass movie with well written characters, well acted, well directed, with message, with a non douchebag Tony Stark who can still be bitter and awesome but not douchey and you follow it with Iron Man 2, it was a mess !! Mickey Rourke was weirdly casted, Justin Hammer was the best part not because he was menacing like Jeff Bridges was, but because he was corny and stupid. Tony is a flatout douchebag, the robot/android thing was rushed and not right, the movie looks cool but it isnt, its all style no substance.

Wha..wha...what? Look I like Iron Man 2 (though I will grant it was the "weakest" of the MCU films)...and I can on some level see how someone might dislike it because it wasn't as good as the other MCU films...but to compare it to these dreadful POS we are listing here is a little much.

If you can explain to me how IM2 is a bad movie AND Blade II is a good movie I'd love to hear it.

Blade didnt set any high standards it was an experiment on a superhero movie with a b lister that happened to be a good movie for the most part and Blade 2 had Del Toros unique direction. again NO STANDARDS WHATSOEVER.

Iron Man did set the bar pretty damn high and with the same cast and crew there is no excuse for Iron Man 2.

I still say that Daredevil is a good superhero movie, the action fight scenes are well done and I'm not even a fan of DD but it got me to look at Frank Miller's run.

There are just a bit of hokey parts like the playground choreography with Matt and Elektra and Ben Affeck's blind eye contacts lens look off sometimes making him cross eyed a bit.

__________________A few of the Marvel Superheroes are somewhat niche characters that aren't extremely versatile, thus they don't have a lot of longevity potential. For example, Namor is a water guy, Silver Surfer is a space guy, Dr. Strange is a magic guy, and so on.

The directors cut of daredevil is pretty solid. From what I understand that was pretty much the original version, but halfway through production the geniuses at fox decided they wanted to make the whole thing more light hearted in tone to make it more akin to spider-man, and that's what made the finished product the way it was haha. But yes, the directors cut had some impressive bits in it that showed it could have been a good movie if they had done a little bit of refining to it. I also think a big problem is the casting of Ben affect and Jennifer garner, but it was far from the worst part of the theatrical cut.

X-Men Last Stand. From what I've heard, Daredevil was actually very close to the comics. I don't understand the bad vibes around it.

Upon rewatching it recently, I have three reasons for a theory of why people disliked it:

1. The soundtrack by Evanescence. I think someone has told me there is a Director's Cut of Daredevil which somewhat took care of this and my next point--

2. Constant tonal shifts. Much of the movie is very dark in tone...until we get scenes of Matt Murdock playfully fighting Elektra in a playground full of children, along with some other "comic relief" that doesn't fit.

3. Colin Farrel's Bullseye. He's a great actor but nothing about the portrayal struck me as an accurate portrayal of Bullseye. And the costume was of course nothing like the comic book for some reason (whereas Daredevil's is just like in the book, so there's no "Nolan-esque" explanation for Bullseye just being a bald-dude in a duster with a bullseye tattoo on his head).

Also the plotting was pretty run-of-the-mill...and the "origin" part of the movie was hella long.

There's the seeds of a good move in there somewhere but it's overall very mediocre, I'd say it's one of their worst ones (if only because so many of their recent ones have been very good).
ON PUNISHER: WAR ZONE:

Punisher: War Zone was precisely what they should do with any Punisher movie. Absolutely over-the-top craziness. A+++ film.

I mean, it's only my opinion, but what with the Punisher character not exactly being the "best" to adapt in the first place I see no better use for him than to provide the audience with hilariously over-the-top novelty death scenes. I mean my favorite part of the Thomas Jane flick was this scene so when I got an entire movie of that I was quite pleased.